Wanted: G-Street

The leaders of the National Rifle Association hold, shall we say, absolutist views on gun ownership.  To listen to their public statements one would think Americans face a stark choice: Either guns of all shapes, sizes, and capacity for inflicting mass carnage must be readily available with minimal restrictions to anybody who wants them, or Americans might as well just surrender now to the dictator who will inevitably--perhaps instantaneously--arise once we sheepishly disarm.

I can't be the only one who sees this as a false choice, right?

I suspect a sizable majority of Americans--including, probably, a majority of gun owners and possibly even NRA members--subscribes neither to the extreme position outlined above nor to its polar opposite, what we might call gun-control absolutism or abolitionism.  I include myself in this majority.  Though no fan of firearms, I would not, even if elected to some Godlike position (late-night comedy show host?), advocate a complete ban on handguns.  I don't object, say, to a law-abiding citizen having a handgun for self-defense or to a hunter owning a rifle.

A majority of Americans could presumably reach agreement on a few sensible reforms that, while not eliminating the possibility of mass shootings, would make them more unlikely.  Most people, for example, would probably agree that guns and gun ownership should be regulated at least as stringently as cars and driving: People should have to pass a test before being given a gun license; guns should be registered and a state and/or national database of gun owners created; registered gun owners should be held responsible for any damage done with their guns, etc.  (I thank a Facebook friend, Andrew Pollack, for some of these suggestions.)  The specifics of a more sensible gun policy could be worked out, but most reasonable people could accept this as a starting point for a discussion.

So, here's my question to gun owners: Why do you continue to let the NRA speak for you?  American Jews who support the idea of Israel's peaceful coexistence with other Mideast countries formed J-Street--a "Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace" lobbying group--when they realized that AIPAC, the predominant Jewish lobbying group in Washington, was never going to moderate its emphatically right-wing ideology.  Why can't gun owners who favor sensible reforms that will truly help keep the public safe--I KNOW you're out there!--break away from the dead-enders (in every sense of the word) at the NRA?

OK, Here We Go. . . .

One cause of the Republican's shellacking in last month's elections was the inability (or unwillingness) of numerous conservative neanderthals to understand that rape is a crime, and that a pregnancy conceived as a result of this crime might be considered something other than a divine blessing.  That's what happens, though, when people hold an absolutist worldview: Abortion is only and always wrong, so any logically consistent argument supporting this worldview, no matter how repugnant, must be right.  One can almost admire folks like Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock for their steadfastness and see something almost tragic (though hardly unwelcome) in their self-inflicted political deathblows.

One wishes some similarly logically-consistent gun-rights advocate would make the obvious comment in the wake of today's Connecticut elementary-school massacre: Those bullets that killed twenty children?  God-given early-Christmas gifts for kids lucky enough to live (briefly) in a country that protects the right to bear arms!  Imagine the backlash!

Of course, no NRA spokesman or (presumably) member would so blatantly blame the innocent victims of this horrific assault.  And yet, within hours of this morning's shootings, many gun-apologists predictably engaged in something only slightly less offensive, opining defensively that if only--If only!--teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary had been armed, this tragedy would have been prevented (or at least minimized).

See, everybody?  It's not the fault of Adam Lanza, the obviously deranged young man who apparently killed all these children, as well as some school personnel, his own mother, and, ultimately, himself.  The fault lies with those irresponsibile schoolteachers who failed to take full advantage of their constitutional freedoms and thereby failed in their duty to protect their young charges!  Why, they're practically as guilty as Lanza!  They ought to be arrested!  Well, the ones who survived anyway.

What gets me about this particular knee-jerk reaction to gun violence is its fundamental illogic.  The argument seems to be that, if we strengthen gun-control laws, we will effectively be unilaterally disarming--that law-abiding people will no longer be able to arm themselves against lunatics with guns.  The problem, of course, is that law-abiding people are NOT consistently arming themselves now.  So unless the NRA is advocating a law requiring gun ownership--they're not, are they?--this argument rings hollow at best, heartless at worst.

I keep waiting, though so far in vain, for the event that will trigger the backlash.  Maybe Sandy Hook will be it.  Maybe this will finally convince people that the NRA should not have a stranglehold on our politics.  I'm not optimistic.

Why Has No One Thought of This?

This morning I watched Mark, our resident computer genius, dusting a keyboard.  Did he envision this as one of his responsibilities when he was in . . .let's say, computer college.  Then it struck me: All mid- and large-size institutions--say, those with more than 50 employees--need a "Beneath My Pay-Grade" Guy--a guy to walk around and handle all those menial tasks that aren't really anybody's responsibility, but that nevetheless need to be done.  Dusting keyboards, changing lightbulbs, cleaning my office.

What the heck, let's have an "Above My Pay-Grade" position, too!

Again: Consistency is ALL I Ask!

I am not one of those Facebook kvetches: those insufferable types who rant and rave every time Zuckerberg takes any action to increase the profitability of his product.  The way I see it, if I suffer minor incovenience because of a few changes to a free service that I am not obligated to use, I have no real right to complain.

Yet apparently I am a Yahoo! kvetch.  I was taken aback today when I logged into my Yahoo! mail and saw changes to the interface.  All of a sudden, for example, there are no checkboxes next to messages in my inbox.  Or rather, there ARE, but they only appear when I "mouse over" them.  The "Sign Out" button is now hidden.  And when I tried to attach a link to an e-mail, someone punched me in the face!  (Which may not, strictly speaking, have had anything to do with Yahoo!)

Maybe I'm just upset because I've had Yahoo! longer: I've had my Yahoo! address for about fifteen years now.  But I think it's more than that: I think that Facebook is still, to me, something of a "game"--a hangout. Changes to Facebook are like renovations to a bar or restaurant: As long as the food (or the friends) don't change, who really cares what the wallpaper looks like?  Yahoo!, though, is more of an ingrained part of my existence.  When unexpected changes happen, I feel disturbingly umoored.

Yes, Yes: Too Soon

Two weeks ago, Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher horrified the NFL--and society in general--when he committed suicide in front of his coach shortly after he murdered his girlfriend.  A few days later, the hapless Chiefs, who had one win to that point in the season, notched an inspiring victory over the Carolina Panthers at Arrowhead Stadium.

Last week, Jerry Brown, a practice-squad linebacker for the Dallas Cowboys was killed when his teammate, driving under the influence, crashed the car in which Brown was a passenger.  A day later, the Cowboys defeated the Cincinnati Bengals in an emotion-filled game.

Right now, if I'm a mid-level defensive player for a team in desperate need of an inspirational win, I'm being EXTRA careful and watching my back.  Tampa Bay Buccaneer Najee Goode?  I'm talking to you!

Consistency Is All I Ask

I've been kind of half-watching "Revolution," this NBC series about a post-apocalyptic America: A mysterious blackout permanently shuts down all electricity, all over the world.   Fifteen years after the blackout, a megalomaniacal dictator is trying to solidify his control over the population, and an intrepid band of rebels is seeking to thwart him--hence the title.  It features Giancarlo Esposito, whom I'll watch in just about anything--well, anything in which he plays a deadeyed killer (sorry "Once Upon a Time"), and that's pretty much the show's saving grace.  Otherwise, it's neither great nor awful--solidly "meh."

I do, however, have a pet peeve with this show and, frankly, with any number of TV shows and movies of its ilk.  The main male character of "Revolution," Miles Matheson (Billy Burke), is a former general in the dictator's army, who has abandoned his former leader and is now working with the rebels.  The very first episode establishes Miles as a virtual combat superhero: He pretty much singlehandedly dispatches about twenty other soldiers using nothing but a sword and his hand-to-hand combat skills.  Unrealistic?  Sure, but I'm OK with that.  I just engage in a bit of time-honored willing suspension of disbelief and accept the fact that Miles Matheson is this unstoppable, kickass killing machine.  Only, in subsequent episodes, when the writer or director presumably needs to fill a minute or so, Miles often has trouble fighting off just one enemy.  What gives?

If writers expect viewers (or readers) to willingly suspend disbelief, then they have an obligation to be consistent.  A superfighter can't fend off a small army one day, only to struggle against a virtual Redshirt the next.  The former fight is exciting; the latter is just an insult to our intelligence.

Just Another Day at Solipsist Central

(Background: I subscribe to a number of periodicals, and I'm a bit. . . behind in my reading.)

SOL (flipping through the sections of today's New York Times): Hm.

WOS: What?

SOL: Uh. . . nothing.

WOS: What?

SOL: Well. . . Don't judge me, OK?

WOS: OK.

SOL: This is today's New York Times Magazine. (I hold up the magazine, which features a picture of Keira Knightley on the cover.) It's their Hollywood issue: They do this every December.

WOS: OK, so?

SOL: Well, this  (holding up a copy of the New York Times Magazine with Brad Pitt on the cover) is the next magazine I have to read.

WOS: But. . .that says "Hollywood Issue," too.

SOL: I know.

WOS: But TODAY's magazine is the Hollywood issue. . .

SOL: Yes.

WOS: So this other one is from. .  .a year ago?

SOL: Yes.

WOS: And you haven't read it yet?

SOL: I said don't judge me!

WOS: You really have to get caught up with this!  You need to stop reading books!  And student papers!

SOL: I know.

WOS: I mean, what'd going to happen when you're 92 and lying on your death bed and you still have, like, a year's worth of magazines to read?

SOL: Well, I guess that just means. . . I can't die!

WOS: No, I don't think that's what it means. . .

SOL: YES!  As long as I haven't caught up with my magazine reading, I can never die!

WOS: But. . .

SOL: It's the magazine rack of Dorian Gray!!!

(Pause.)

WOS: . . . What?